ivanhu

I disagree. If the shooter says that he has "interpersonal problems", then he basically says, and asks for the replacement because he thinks, that the RO, due to the "interpersonal problems", would treat him differently as would treat others. That's cheating - treating anybody differently just because of the interpersonal problems, that's cheating. On the other hand, the shooter might say that "I have interpersonal problems with X. The problem is, if he is the RO when I shoot, I became a bit tense and nervous. I cannot concentrate on shooting. Please, replace him when I shoot." Most RMs would accept this reasoning. Yet, I don't know any rule which would force the RM to accept any reasoning. The decision is upon him alone - no rule will help him. That's just not obligatory, and if he says "no", the shooter has no ground to protest.

Actually, as far as I see, you can request a new RO, but that's just a possibility, and not your right. The RM will or will not accept that request. Requesting a new RO is basically saying that "hey, you have an RO who cheats".

There's a solution though. Use spacers and wood between the paper and the metal.

No kidding. So place a paper on its surface, if you so concerned.

Jim, IMHO it's an easy call even in your case. The question is, would you score that bullet sign if it was the only single hit on that target? If the answer is yes, then you have to score it even if there are 11 (or pick any other number) other hits on the same target... And by score, I mean the appropriate penalties, if that is the case.

My only match DQ in so far was exactly that, my finger was in while clearing malfunction. It happened in the Netherlands - I hardly could go any farther for a DQ here in Europe (save Spain, perhaps). I learnt my lesson then, and take extra care since, for that I'm actually grateful. Funny part was, that it happened during the pre-match; two squads of ROs went together, and someone from the one squad officiated for the other squad. When I was DQed, I was the last shooter from my squad, and the RO who DQed me was the first shooter of the other squad - and it was my turn to officiate! Having said all the above, when it comes to safety, the earlier we might cut off the deviances, the safer we'll be. I mean, shooters learn from the DQs, and after that, we don't have to wait the AD to happen - waiting it to happen is apparently more dangerous, because then a bullet will fly (over the berm right to the next road, for example). Nope, when it comes to safety, zero tolerance is the only "safe" solution. Excuse me the pun..

And when you're at it (that is, watching the timer), always memorize the time the timer shows. When you call the time loud, try to do it from memory - you should be able to remember. In this case, you'll see if the time is increased after the last shot (eg. you hit a button on your shirt with the timer).

I wasn't there when this decision was made, but I content with that rule. Accuracy is the key - scoring minor increases the importance of accuracy. One might see way too many "spray and pray" kind already, no need for more IMHO. Additionally, regardless which scoring policy is chosen, the overwhelming number of production shooters will choose the 9 mils - due to its magazine capacity, and its more controllable feature. That is, in production we mostly see the minor calibers. It isn't harder to control, so why should IPSC compensate something that is not existing?

Apparently! But this is how our sport works. If you are the course designer, build your stages with care. If you make a mistake and the more clever shooters discover it, then just smile and say thanks for them, because you learnt again something. Been there, done that - on both side! The option is there, and it is the same for everyone, so there's no room for protests. I hate when the stupid, incompetent stage designers are trying to introduce special rules, adding more words to the text of the walk-through, or using other administrative tools to cover their incompetence. Do not try to increase the penalty in order to avoid something you do not wish to happen. Instead, design and build your stages to prevent it. I know it's the harder way, but it's the only way it should be. By you, I meant all of us, stage designers - nothing personal, you know. Anyhow, this is my pet peeve, and also the button on me.

Guess this answers "no" to your question: the previous (complete) results will stand. Thanks, I missed it.

The rule says that if someone has finished the pre-match, and later he is DQed on a side match and/or the shoot-off, then his already completed match results still stand. So far, so good - but what if someone has finished the pre-match, then re-registers on the main match (just for fun, or in another division as per 6.2.4), then he is DQed on the main match. Since 10.3.5. gives the extent only if the shooter is DQed on the side match or shoot-off, should we remove that shooter's results of the previous division? As it is now, IMHO the rules seem to say "yes". TIA!

Hmmm, how would you rule if the shooter faults the line once, but shoots from three different locations whlle faulting. Let's say, he gained a significant advantage as in this way he was able to spare some time from changing positions, but otherwise gained no significant advantage on any particular target. Could it happen? I was unable to imagine such a stage, but is there anybody here who's brave enough to say 'it's impossible'? How about giving the option for the RO to assess one PE for each location/view if he thinks that's due? DVC, Ivan "The Terrible"

Actually, by reading this 10.2.1 more, it seems to me it doesn't even define that we should consider how many fault/charge lines were faulted. All it says is that if during the COF, the shooter takes shots while faulting a fault/charge line (any fault/charge line!), then we must give him ONE PE, unless he gained a significant advantage while faulting - in this later case, he must earn one PE per shot taken (regardless of the number of shots actually meaning significant advantage). DVC Ivan "The Terrible"

To add some more dust, and to heat the discussion more, please let me humbly ask: was it really two different faults that we saw on the video? I mean, were the shooter not fault when on the left port, he surely wouldn't fault when on the front; and were the shooter fault at the left, he most likely would fault on the front. Between the two positions they moved only the minimally necessary distance (that is, a small jump). I know these are different ports, they changed their stance, whatever, but is it really two fault, or just one? And - does it really matter whether he changed stance or not? He actually faulted the very same charge line, and 10.2.1 is silent about the number of "locations" served by the charge line! To abstract from this case, suppose the shooter has to lay down, but without moving his feet a bit. Then, he basically remains in the same place, but by changing the position of his body (changing the shooting stance), he shoots from two different positions. (By the way, the rules don't define how to mean "different location or view". By my interpretation, two locations (or views) are different if some kind of "movement" is required between the two; and 8.5 clearly defines movement.) In this case, only one faulty action on the part of the shooter present. Do we have to assess two penalties for that single action? Hope that by now you see what I'm after, but here you are the short summary: 10.2.1 gives us the option to assess penalties on a "per shot" or on a "per occurrance" basis, but it doesn't say a word about the time constraints. If the shooter faults the very same charge line several times during the COF, we still have only these two options (strictly speaking), as that's just ONE charge line that was faulted. The same goes to the location/view constraints: regardless of how many locations/views are being served by that charge line, we still have only these two options. DVC, Ivan "The Terrible"

Some more suggestions; I'm afraid you already know most if not all about it 1. Finding the range. The international shooters don't know the exact location of the range and sometimes their accommodation, therefore a map, or a written guide may help a lot. Placing IPSC targets on the roadside (with arrows if needed) really helps. 2. Range infrastructure. Often overlooked point: there should be enough toilets, and places to wash hands. Preferably, minimum of one toilet should be assigned exclusively for ladies. I mean, even if only one person at a time could enter. 3. Range infrastructure 2. Catering. It's always a hard decision. For one, maybe two hundred shooters some kind of catering should be available - but don't expect the shooters to spend much money there. Therefore, the catering is rarely a great business. The trap is, that since the expected income is rather small, the prices are higher, which generates even less traffic, and so on. In most cases, bottled beverages, and maybe a few sweetmeat (the international ones, like Mars, Bounty, etc) usually do (supposing that at noon, there is a kind of lunch). 3. Confirmation of registration. Also often overlooked. The shooters want to know that their registration request is arrived and accepted. 4. Post-match communication. It is very important for the shooters! They all want to know how they have finished, knowing the first few is not enough. Posting the results on the web page is sufficient enough nowadays.

Gentlemen, I know that it was a topic here already, but now I'd like to ask you, please consider the following two scenarios. At the end of the COF, after pulling the trigger, the shooter holsters the gun. Unfortunately, he misplaces it, therefore as soon as he releases the grip, the gun falls. According the current ruling, DQ - the holstering was not completed. At the end of the COF, after pulling the trigger, the shooter holsters the gun. Unfortunatel,y he misplaces it, but due to his anatomy and the angle of the holster, the gun sits. The RO announces "range is clear", but as soon as the shooter starts to move, the gun falls. Since it was outside of the COF, no DQ. On top of that, there's another question here. Is the first case really a DQable situation? One might argue that he has holstered the gun, his hand was clear of it, therefore the COF has been finished, but he unfortunately punched the gun, so it fell. In many cases, the RO won't be able to tell the difference. Don't even mention, many ROs declare "range is clear" as soon as the competitor releases the grip (opens his palm), therefore the gun will fall in the middle, or even after the "range is clear" command. Does it really make so much difference? Now the question is, should we change the rule so that the above two scenarios be ruled equally? What are the pros and cons you see? Before filing an official request to consider the case, I would like to know what you think about it. (The suggestion would be to say that after the pulling of the trigger following the "if clear, hammer down" command, dropping the gun shouldn't be a DQable offence. That "click" is a very clear point of time.)

Jim, we disagree again. There are several things to consider. a. Those race holsters. Sometimes a light push, or a small punch will kick the gun off to the ground. If the shooter just stands, his/her hand is still on near the gun. A small movement may cause the gun to fall. If he/she stands still, with arms crossed, then it won't happen, or at least the possibility of that to happen is far less. b. Some shooters will spend their "extra time" to run through the COF in mind. We don't want them to move or making exercises, as it also increases the possibility of a fallen gun, do we? c. As it was mentioned, that psycho thingie. That position reminds the shooter what's happening. As you perhaps know, or maybe you don't, the shooters occassionally do unexpected things, due to a momentary brain fade. Just suppose that he stands there, with a loaded gun on his side, with closed eyes as he runs through the COF in mind, when a close "beep" arrives, perhaps from the next bay. Will or will not he draw? After all, we all trained ourselves to react fast to the start signal. Were he try to do that when his arms crossed, he has more time to realize what's going on, and the RO also has longer time to stop his arm. In a way, all shooters are "scary" - they have an equipment with them that may cause serious harm or even death. The more precautions we might do the better. You know, layered defence is better, and the more layers of safety you have, the possibility of something unwished to happen is less. Best Regards, Ivan "The Terrible" KETLER

Yet another question, re: 10.2.8. The question is, does this "i.e." interpretation actually exclude the hand itself, or the weak hand (the palm, fingers, and all) are included? For me it's not clear. TIA Ivan "The Terrible" KETLER

Thanks for the previous clarification. Right now I'm translating the interpretations, and I have a question regarding the 5.7.1. The new sentence says: My weak English language command makes me uncertain how should I understand this part. By my interpretation the competitor is entitled to retire under the authority and supervision of the officiating RO (that is, unload and show clear, etc), and then he may go whereever he wishes without any further RO assistance. In fact, I'm almost certain that this is how you guys meant this rule to be interpreted, I'm just ask to be sure. Am I right in this interpretation? TIA Ivan "The Terrible" KETLER

Hi, I'm a bit late perhaps, but I was out. I have a question about 5.6.3.3 - I simply cannot understand it. What is considered to be the "face value"? Please advise, I really cannot understand what that sentence mean. Thanks! Ivan "The Terrible" KETLER

Hi Tim, I'm glad to see you here. Be the force with us all...

Oh, in this particular case it's pretty simple. Just try to explain that he/she should leave. Do it very politely, and continue to do so for five minutes. Then, the walkthrough is over, and everybody will leave the stage, including the non-speaking visitor... More seriously, by my experience, sign language and smile brings you all around the world.

I've participated two such events. First: fifteen steels on the stage. Four shooters form the team. Each shooter is allowed to shoot five rounds. After the first shooter finishes, the second shooter appears on the line and shoots at the remaining targets, then the third, and - if needed - the fourth. We measured the time of each. The fastest time with no standing metal left won, down to the slowest time with no missed target. The next is the fastest time among those who left one metal standing, and so on. (Some of the metal plates was placed over 40 meters, while some others were much closer). The trick was, who shot at the distance targets, and who shot at the closer ones. Second: A regular stage with some targets (only paper targets). The stage consists of three strings. First shooter of the team appears, and shoots the stage. The time is noted. Without scoring, the second shooter of the team appears, and shoots the stage. The time is noted. Finally, the third shooter of the team appears, and shoots the stage. The time is noted, the targets are scored. Best six hits count. Any competitor who has finished the stage was asked to step aside, and the team members were not allowed to talk to each other between their turns. (Actually, the stage was built that they didn't see each other). We never called FTE penalties, just scored the six best hits. Some targets were close, others were in quite a distance.

By "Match A Shoot-Off" you mean the shoot-off for that the shooters were selected using the results of Match A? Now the question is, if anybody may register for the shoot-off (the match results play no role), and the pairs will be selected randomly at first, then is it a separate shoot-off, or still part of match A? It's not a theoretical question for me, as we usually pick the shooters by the abovementioned method. This is why I mixed here that "were or weren't announced" - if it was announced, one may argue that it's part of the match, if it weren't, then one may argue it isn't part of the match.

Well, maybe it says that it's exception to the "unsafe gun handling"? I mean, taking a shot usually is the proof that the finger was in when it shouldn't have been, and this 10.4.9 is the exception to that? It might make sense.